5 better active resumes than GGG's?

Top 10 is pretty much saying a guy is a top opponent. its saying hes top ten. the top opponents are at the top of that list, by definition. so no.

How many combined rounds has he lost between Wlad, Wilder, and Wallin? Golovkin's ability to finish opponents is pretty amazing, and that really seems to tilt things his way. It's always worked that way: why is Gans better remembered than McFarland, Robinson better remembered than Pep, Foreman better remembered than Holmes? People watch Boxing for violence. Beating a guy to a pulp is the epitome of that. But no one on Golovkin's ledger matches Wlad or Wilder for accomplishment. On film, I'd put Wallin on par with Golovkin's best. And when he fought Jacobs (the best fighter on his record after Canelo), Golovkin went the distance. Fury makes everyone look equally bad. Got ya thanks for the reply...I personally just have to call it like I see it, and with Fury, I agree that he is a tough matchup for anyone...I thought the first 6 rounds vs Wilder were very even, and then he obviously dropped 2 of the last 6 with the KD. With Wlad, I didn't see so much of a dominant performance again...just more of a very awkward show with very little action....I have never watched the whole thing and haven't scored it...but I again didn't really see a lot of dominant rounds there for Fury in that one, from what I did see. Vs Wallin, he may well end up being a good HW...I don't see how we could put him up there with Jacobs, SD, or Murray Lemieux right now...I also think that fight was fairly even as well...of course the eye injury changed a lot in that fight, but I saw it pretty close...I don't think I watched the whole thing though and didn't score the whole thing obviously. Just different perspectives there I suppose....on paper of course nothing GGG officially has looks as good as the Wlad win.

because he wasnt a top opponent. Top 10 is pretty much saying a guy is a top opponent.

I'm not sure I follow you here? because he wasnt a top opponent.

exactyl , you had to say top ten to accomodate Murray. I'm not sure I follow you here? Pacquiao, Lomachenko, Fury, Canelo are maybes. Canelo lost both fight to Golovkin, but he's covered more divisions. Golovkin could have gone after the Kovalev scalp, too. I don't personally see it for Fury...not yet...I actually think AJ's would be the best HW resume right now, based on my initial view...haven't really gotten into the weeds with it...Fury's win over Wlad wasn't as impressive to me as it is to some others...but it has to be viewed as a better win than AJ in the sense that he did it first though. I think GGG and Kov are pretty friendly so I can't see GGG fighting him, especially kind of picking on him (for lack of a better term) late in his career when Kov looks pretty shot. I agree though that GGG could have traversed the weights above at 168-175 a bit more and built his resume up more that way though...maybe not the Kov fights but there were probably others he could have at least really looked for in the last few years to try and give him some good names. To be fair to him he has gotten a lot of quality fights at MW in the last few years as well though...his career (rightfully so imo) has just revolved around Canelo for a while now so that has kind of dictated a lot of his decisions in like the past 5 years.

Yeah good post man...I still think overall he had a great career...I think with him being relatively unknown, and a very scary fighter in his prime...it just became a very tough fight for big name fighters to take...no real money in it and no credit, certainly not from casuals...so yeah he just kind of had to settle for best available usually, which didn't turn out too bad...still a lot of quality fighters he had to get through. I'm glad he could at least get the Canelo fights at the end of career so he could get paid...after a long good career I think he deserved that. He was a top 10 MW man...who had basically just beaten Felix Sturm in Germany but they gave him a draw because it was in Germany. And you were initially seemingly saying that I said Martinez was in great form in that fight...I clearly said at the beginning it was a decent version of Martinez, implying that I was aware he was not a prime version of himself...but he was not also completely shot, as he was in the Cotto fight. exactyl , you had to say top ten to accomodate Murray.

You are a GGG nuthugger and it shows. I had ggg winning the first canelo fight and losing the 2nd. That's documented on boxingscene. I had ggg winning the dereavychencko fight 114-113 that's documented on boxingscene. You keep trying to make this about Canelo vs Golovkin when it's not. Everybody who watches boxing knows Canelo resume is better than Golovkin. That's not a debate. The debate was name others besides Pac and Canelo who got better wins than Golovkin. And I gave my opinion and then you start talking about Alvarez. Golovkin resume is average at best. Anybody who watches boxing knows this. Only fanboys try to hype up Macklin, adama, rosado, Murray, lemiuex, Rubio, monroe, rolls, vanes, proska, geale, ouma Where is this resume you speak of? Canelo, Jacobs, Derevychencko is the meat of his resume. Btw anyone keeping it remotely real would give GGG the first fight...and the only way to give Canelo the 2nd fight is to overrate Canelo's work/not score a lot of GGG's work...and SD score is fair enough, that was a close fight and SD's activity kept him in a lot of those rounds.

You are a GGG nuthugger and it shows. I had ggg winning the first canelo fight and losing the 2nd. That's documented on boxingscene. I had ggg winning the dereavychencko fight 114-113 that's documented on boxingscene. You keep trying to make this about Canelo vs Golovkin when it's not. Everybody who watches boxing knows Canelo resume is better than Golovkin. That's not a debate. The debate was name others besides Pac and Canelo who got better wins than Golovkin. And I gave my opinion and then you start talking about Alvarez. Golovkin resume is average at best. Anybody who watches boxing knows this. Only fanboys try to hype up Macklin, adama, rosado, Murray, lemiuex, Rubio, monroe, rolls, vanes, proska, geale, ouma Where is this resume you speak of? Canelo, Jacobs, Derevychencko is the meat of his resume. Nah man I am at least consistent across the board about resumes...as any real fan should be, I give credit for beating quality fighters at their best weight who are in good form...GGG has a lot of those guys. I don't overrate 'names' on a resume when those names are past prime, above their best weight, and ripe for the picking...no offense but that is casual level stuff, or fanboy stuff. As real fans we should give props for having a lot of wins and no slip ups vs the quality fighters out there...Manny can't say that...nor could Marvin Hagler or Tommy Hearns or Duran...the list goes on and on...to be fair Duran had a sh.it load of fights though lol.

Lol...no I just can tell from your posts that you are a huge Canelo guy so you are really insecure about anyone putting GGG up there with him...even though we all saw who the better man was, twice, when they got in the ring...and sorry, but it wasn't Nelo. And yeah you're just putting words in my mouth so knock yourself out with that my friend...you seem to be a guy who wants to overrate some wins for some guys, and slight similar wins for other guys...I am a guy that keeps it real with what I see, and I know that beating a shot, past great, above his best weight, is not really ever a better win that beating a prime, in form, fighter at his best weight. You want to hype up the former type wins because you like Canelo...that's cool man, do you. Btw...you make it clear you don't really know what you're talking about btw...Martinez was on the decline for Murray...but he was one legged vs Cotto...that's the first where he was on one leg...he was still a decent challenge vs Murray. Anyone who says GGG lost to Jacobs just really exposes themselves as a big GGG hater and not really someone to take seriously...it was a competitive fight but not really hard to score and there was only 1 winner...SD was a very close fight that GGG probably won due to the first 2 rounds where he took a 3 point lead probably. Among other things you lie about...I never said all of those fights were great wins for GGG lol..most of those guys you mentioned would be in his like 12-15th best wins...I said those guys were solid enough wins...and if you actually studied boxing a bit, you would know that a lot of fighters, even ATGs, have a loss or two when they face about 10 of the David Lemieuxs and Monroes and Geales of the world...GGG had about 12 or so fights like that and never came close to losing those, and that is impressive to me. Like I said man...be a fan...that's fine...but as far as boxing analysis goes, I can't take you seriously...you show in basically all of your posts that you have a bias/agenda...so when you try to act impartial it just doesn't work man. Have a great night. You are a GGG nuthugger and it shows. I had ggg winning the first canelo fight and losing the 2nd. That's documented on boxingscene. I had ggg winning the dereavychencko fight 114-113 that's documented on boxingscene. You keep trying to make this about Canelo vs Golovkin when it's not. Everybody who watches boxing knows Canelo resume is better than Golovkin. That's not a debate. The debate was name others besides Pac and Canelo who got better wins than Golovkin. And I gave my opinion and then you start talking about Alvarez. Golovkin resume is average at best. Anybody who watches boxing knows this. Only fanboys try to hype up Macklin, adama, rosado, Murray, lemiuex, Rubio, monroe, rolls, vanes, proska, geale, ouma Where is this resume you speak of? Canelo, Jacobs, Derevychencko is the meat of his resume.

1. Pacquiao 2. Canelo 3. Fury 4. Loma 5. Spence Thanks for the reply...don't remotely see number 3 and 5...4 has a good one but not too close imo...1 and 2 are solid ones and number 1 is certainly ahead of GGG's.

Ramirez CLEARLY out boxed AA lol, as did Eubank, Froch, Dirrell, Ward. AA beat Murray, there wasn't any controversy lol. JT wasn't done, he only lost to the very top guys and was outboxing AA. Did you just compare Lemieux to Froch? Smh. Froch has Taylor, Kessler, etc. On his resume, who has Lemieux beaten? Hey man you seem intent on seeing things 100% your way...so there isn't much reason to discuss anything here...I will agree that Murray didn't beat AA as well as those Eubank Froch and Dirrell...but it was probably 8-4 Murray (as one judge had it) rather than like 10-2 as it was in those other fights. Yeah I said Lemieux was like a worse, 160 pound, version of Froch...the main difference, which is a big one, is Froch had much better punch resistance/chin than David...so of course that means Froch will have a little bit better wins overall, and h2h Froch would always have been a decent favorite over Lemiuex...he would probably stop him. Froch's resume is a bit smoke and mirrors though imo...a lot of fights at home, and the fight with Dirrell he could have lost in a neutral venue...and besides Ward, Dirrell is the only remotely slick guy Froch ever faced...those 2 aren't even super slick and they gave Froch problems. The guys he did well against were come forward guys like him who, in a firefight, he would usually win...but if you matched him up against a guy who could box/move and take a punch, he would take a loss all day imo...the same BJS that beat Lemieux would have boxed circles around Froch too, for most of the fight anyway...not saying it would have been 12-0 but probably 8-4, at least. Taylor was not the same guy at that time, or at that weight...that should be something we all agree on there man.

I ask this question because in another thread a few guys (the usual GGG-hating crew, to be fair) were going crazy about GGG being mentioned as having a top active resume. I don't really see the case against him having a top one...I don't follow the small guys much so can't comment on those guys really...fwiw, boxrec(which is not an exact science imo) has GGG #3 pfp right now, which is basically their view of who has the best active resumes. Resume is defined as - a brief account of a person’s education, qualifications, and previous experience. Pac obviously would be the #1 current resume in most people's opinion...Canelo would probably be 2nd...I don't really see where, based on that definition and based on my view of Canelo and GGG, where Canelo's resume would necessarily be better than GGG's, but a case can certainly be made that Nelo's is better. I think Loma would probably be up there now as well. But once you start getting into the Porters, Garcias, Pascals, Kovalevs etc...I mean I don't really see how reasonable people can put those guys above GGG's resume...and GGG's would certainly seem to be on par or above compared to those guys. Just looking for some thoughts/discussion here? 1. Pacquiao 2. Canelo 3. Fury 4. Loma 5. Spence

Ramirez won easily because the fight was in the US, not Germany. Jermain Taylor was done at that point man...come on, you should know that...look at his record around that point in time. Lemieux is basically a worse version of Froch...and not by much imo....and GGG dusted Lemieux while Ward had a 7-5 fight with Froch. So yeah man thanks for your posts but for whatever reason I just don't think you really keep it real here. Ramirez CLEARLY out boxed AA lol, as did Eubank, Froch, Dirrell, Ward. AA beat Murray, there wasn't any controversy lol. JT wasn't done, he only lost to the very top guys and was outboxing AA. Did you just compare Lemieux to Froch? Smh. Froch has Taylor, Kessler, etc. On his resume, who has Lemieux beaten?

GGG’s career was introduced late in the US. And he only had the big fights when he’s like 36... i mean well, who the hell fights better.. or is physically stronger at 36 than when they’re 28-30? Even the goats didn’t. Even pac and floyd didn’t. So i think if we gonna view it logically, it is definitely a factor on how his career turned out. And there is a reason Oscar and Canelo delayed the fight a bit.. Yeah good post man...I still think overall he had a great career...I think with him being relatively unknown, and a very scary fighter in his prime...it just became a very tough fight for big name fighters to take...no real money in it and no credit, certainly not from casuals...so yeah he just kind of had to settle for best available usually, which didn't turn out too bad...still a lot of quality fighters he had to get through. I'm glad he could at least get the Canelo fights at the end of career so he could get paid...after a long good career I think he deserved that. nothing really impressive about beating a guy who was supposed to be a soft defence for Martinez. but it was a world title defence, no less. yeh i didnt say he was prime either so dead end there He was a top 10 MW man...who had basically just beaten Felix Sturm in Germany but they gave him a draw because it was in Germany. And you were initially seemingly saying that I said Martinez was in great form in that fight...I clearly said at the beginning it was a decent version of Martinez, implying that I was aware he was not a prime version of himself...but he was not also completely shot, as he was in the Cotto fight.

He wasn't 36 when Ward offered the fight, stop the bull****. Dude why do you and others pretend like the whole situation with Ward/HBO and GGG never happened...where Ward said he wasn't ready for the fight straight away...like how do people not factor that in to everything...just come across as biased tbh

Ward-Kov was never a robbery, it was close & in the end Ward proved to be much better stopping him in the rematch. Abraham was thoroughly out boxed by Froch, Ward, Dirrell etc. YEARS ago in his prime, he was 35 when he fought MM in after a ton of tough bouts. There was no controversy over the scoring either, A.A won fairly. Ramirez more than outperformed M.M schooling A.A Clear gap in class. Paul Smith was also giving AA a good scrap and got a rematch. Abraham's best win is Jermaine Taylor, BETTER than anyone ggg has beat smh. AA could've broken the 160 defense record but chose to move up to 168 & fight world class opponents, not ggg. Lemieux is C level dude, who did he ever beat? Even Curtis Stevens got hyped up despite previously losing to who was it Brinkley? These guys did nothing before or after. Ramirez won easily because the fight was in the US, not Germany. Jermain Taylor was done at that point man...come on, you should know that...look at his record around that point in time. Lemieux is basically a worse version of Froch...and not by much imo....and GGG dusted Lemieux while Ward had a 7-5 fight with Froch. So yeah man thanks for your posts but for whatever reason I just don't think you really keep it real here.

GGG’s career was introduced late in the US. And he only had the big fights when he’s like 36... i mean well, who the hell fights better.. or is physically stronger at 36 than when they’re 28-30? Even the goats didn’t. Even pac and floyd didn’t. So i think if we gonna view it logically, it is definitely a factor on how his career turned out. And there is a reason Oscar and Canelo delayed the fight a bit.. according to GGG fans they are still delaying it!

Where did I say it was a prime Sergio...I said it was a decent version of him...certainly better than the version vs Cotto...much better...I have no doubt he was still having issues after the knee surgery vs Murray...or more likely just was feeling his age. But he had no knee braces on in that fight vs Murray...so as I said, it was a decent version of Sergio...we seem to agree on that, so not sure why you even quoted me. yeh i didnt say he was prime either so dead end there

Btw part of what is impressive about the Murray win is how GGG just dominated him and won every round, 1-11...that is part of why it is an impressive win. nothing really impressive about beating a guy who was supposed to be a soft defence for Martinez. but it was a world title defence, no less.

Good post thanks man...yeah I just think objectively when you look at GGG's it ends up being strong...but there are a lot of devoted GGG dislikers on here so they will fight that tooth and nail really....some of the reasoning there from them just makes little sense...but when you see how emotional they are about fighters they do and don't like, well their analysis makes a little more sense...it isn't really logic based, just emotion really. GGG’s career was introduced late in the US. And he only had the big fights when he’s like 36... i mean well, who the hell fights better.. or is physically stronger at 36 than when they’re 28-30? Even the goats didn’t. Even pac and floyd didn’t. So i think if we gonna view it logically, it is definitely a factor on how his career turned out. And there is a reason Oscar and Canelo delayed the fight a bit..